Archive for 19 November, 2012

Here’s a little tip for all of us Conservatives to keep in mind: If a politician describes himself/herself as a hyphenated Conservative (i.e. – “Compassionate-Conservate,” “Fiscal-Conservative,” etc.) RUN AWAY!!!

You are either a Conservative, or you are not!

Hyphenating your ideology means that you don’t fully embrace said ideology, only a specific idea in that ideology.

Allow me to digress for a moment in order to illustrate that concept:

Believe it or not, Conservatives and Liberals agree on a number of items—it is just the method for getting them done that we disagree on.

One example, right of the top of my head, is poverty. Both Conservatives and Liberals believe in helping the poor. See? “Common Ground.” What separates us is the way in which we think it should be done. The Liberals think that the government should handle it via our tax dollars; Conservatives think family, friends, and the Church are better suited to provide for the poor in their community until they are able to get back on their feet.

Therefore, if a RINO were attempting to win over a few Conservative votes, he might say that he is a, “Charitable-Conservative.” Of course, he doesn’t really mean that he is a full-blown Conservative (far from it! ), what he means is that he agrees we should be charitable and help out our fellow man. But, beware, once he gets into office, he’s going to be EXTREMELY liberal in using YOUR money to help the poor!

So, when a politician and his handlers hyphenate their Conservatism, that means they are not really Conservatives, but have found “common ground” with us Conservatives in order to con us out of our votes on election day:

The End Of The Karl Rove Death Grip Signals A Reagan RenaissanceRalph Benko – Forbes

There was a touchy relationship between President Reagan and his Vice President George H.W. Bush. They were rivals during the primaries. Bush attacked the Reagan economic agenda as “voodoo economics.” Bush served faithfully as VP for eight years but Reagan and Bush never warmed to one another. There was precious little rapport between the populist figures populating the Reagan circle and the Eastern establishment retinue of the son of the patrician Sen. Prescott Bush.

When George H.W. Bush’s turn came he talked like Dirty Harry, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” When the moment of truth came, George H.W. Bush blinked, raising taxes. His presidency was liquidated by the perfect storm of a Reaganite base revolted by the abandonment of a solemn campaign pledge plus a tax-increase induced recession. Bush père was a conservative and a very decent man. He was hornswoggled by elegant Mandarins like Dick Darman.

George W. Bush, as good as, and more conservative than, his father, was hornswoggled too. He campaigned on the theme of “compassionate conservatism.” That phrase, like his father’s “kinder and gentler nation”, implied a certain pitilessness in Reagan conservativism. The implications complied with the liberal caricature of Reagan. Pitilessness, however, reflected neither the self-concept of most Reagan loyalists nor our splendidly humanitarian outcomes (such as the dramatic reduction of the Misery Index). Real conservatives saw Reaganomics as a way of creating broad-based opportunity, not as catering to the rich. It worked out exactly that way … in America and throughout the world. The blossoming of free market principles — especially low tax rates and good money — brought billions of souls out of poverty, from subsistence to affluence.

In an intraparty succession barely noticed by the mainstream media the Bush forces supplanted the Reagan forces within the GOP. Keepers of the Reagan legacy tended to end up at positions of respect and influence within the conservative movement. For example Reagan intimate, counselor, and attorney general Edwin Meese III long has held a prestigious office with the Heritage Foundation, the flagship of the Washington conservative establishment. Even though Meese was a General in the Reagan Revolution, though, his influence on a Bush cohort-dominated GOP — one that chiseled Reagan onto Rushmore while ignoring Reagan’s philosophy — is constrained.

Mandarins of the Bush (pere and fils) cohort sought and received mere token presence in the conservative establishment. They sought, and achieved, rather, vast influence in the Republican Party. Mandarin Karl Rove, comrade of Bush pere’s campaign guru Lee Atwater, became the dominant partisan figure.

The enormity of (and surprise at) the defeat of Romney is a huge setback — and perhaps fatal — to the Bush Mandarins’ hegemony over the GOP. If so, the potential re-ascendency of the Reagan wing of the GOP will prove very bad news for liberals and excellent news for the Republican Party. The Reagan wing now can resurge. A resurgence already has begun.

Email Subscription

(Click on the above picture to post any interesting news items you come across).

QUOTE:

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan

( via "The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964-1980" by Steven F. Hayward, page 96)